Here's a great bit...

...from Louis C. K. that is NSFW.*

The reason I posted it is because, besides being funny, it's absolutely true. In fact, as I was saying to someone just the other day, if God gave me the option to do this whole "life" thing all over again, I would definitely choose to be born a white male American in the latter half of the twentieth century. I wouldn't even hesitate. Would you?

Why do I bring this up? Last week, when I was driving up to Minnesota, I suggested that some of the animosity toward President Obama was racial. (Republicans hate to hear this, so I braced myself for the inevitable pushback.) Instead, my traveling companion admitted that, yes, her husband didn't like the president because he was black.

My jaw dropped to the floor. And not because I was surprised, but because she volunteered it so readily.

"Really?" I asked. "Why?"

"Because," she answered, "at the companies he worked for blacks got preferential treatment. They would often get hired or promoted whether they deserved it or not because of pressure from the government. Then they'd end up in HR or somewhere where they couldn't do any harm. Wasn't that true where you worked?"

"No, not really. In fact, there were few, if any, blacks at the Wall Street firms I worked for in the 1980s and '90s.

"But back to your husband. Did he miss out on any promotions or opportunities because he was white? How many CEOs or high-level executives in America are black, anyway? And didn't he have a good career? In fact, hasn't he led a pretty charmed life? A good marriage, two college-educated kids, two grandchildren, a vacation home in Michigan -- looks pretty good from where I'm sitting."

I didn't say so, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if his net worth is north of a million bucks. Not bad, right? Now, granted, he's worked hard all his life (probably the hardest-working guy I've ever met -- with the possible exception of my own wife), so he deserves everything he has. But, am I supposed to feel sorry for him? Is he really some sort of victim? Didn't he, as Louis C. K. says in the video above, have a leg up? I mean, wouldn't you rather be born in some middle class white suburb than poor and black on the West Side of Chicago? What are the odds you'd go to college and even be in a position to complain?

It's funny; I always knew some Republicans were racist. (After all, I know how white people talk about blacks when there aren't any around.) But they're usually loath to admit it. Wow.

* Not suitable for work. Come on, you didn't know that?

I spent some quality time...

...with a Republican last week and it was even more eye-opening than I had expected.

For starters, she admitted that she still "really likes George Bush." And I thought, What about him do you like, 9/11? The two wars? Torture? Katrina? Record budget deficits? The economic collapse? What?

And her best response was that Bush "brought the country together after 9/11."

In the last days of his presidency, in the fall of 2008, Bush's Gallup approval rating hit a low of 25 percent. At the time I thought, if anything, that number sounded a little high. After all, I asked myself, Who on earth still likes this guy?

Now I know.

I like what Chris Rock said about W. in a recent interview with Frank Rich of New York Magazine (my emphasis):

George Bush ... revolutionized the presidency. How? He was the first president who only served the people who voted for him.

The New Yorker cartoon of the day:

My mother turns 95 tomorrow...

...so I'll be driving up to Minneapolis with my sister today -- my Catholic, Republican, Fox News-watching, President Obama-hating, Notre Dame-loving, White Sox-loving, Cubs-hating sister.* This should be interesting.

I'll be back on Saturday.

* She offered to bring sandwiches, though, so things are looking up.

The best thing I've read...

...so far regarding the Senate torture report was in yesterday's Times, "Pardon Bush and Those Who Tortured," by Anthony D. Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union. Key passage (my emphasis):

But let’s face it: Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions — no matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures — because of the political fallout. He should therefore take ownership of this decision. He should acknowledge that the country’s most senior officials authorized conduct that violated fundamental laws, and compromised our standing in the world as well as our security. If the choice is between a tacit pardon and a formal one, a formal one is better. An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted.

Mr. Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.’s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantánamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all.

While the idea of a pre-emptive pardon may seem novel, there is precedent. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers as a step toward unity and reconstruction after the Civil War. Gerald R. Ford pardoned Richard M. Nixon for the crimes of Watergate. Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft resisters.

The spectacle of the president’s granting pardons to torturers still makes my stomach turn. But doing so may be the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again. Pardons would make clear that crimes were committed; that the individuals who authorized and committed torture were indeed criminals; and that future architects and perpetrators of torture should beware. Prosecutions would be preferable, but pardons may be the only viable and lasting way to close the Pandora’s box of torture once and for all.

The Bruce Eric Kaplan cartoon of the day:

Want to know what the GOP...

...establishment is thinking? (Of course you do!) Then just read Karl Rove's occasional columns in The Wall Street Journal. He's the Rosetta Stone of the Republican establishment.

Take yesterday's piece, for example. In "Who’s Winning The GOP’s Invisible Primaries? Republican presidential hopefuls are competing to refine messages, raise money and build staffs," Rove tells his readers exactly which candidates would be acceptable to the establishment wing of the party -- and which ones would not.

Now I know what you're thinking: Yeah, yeah, yeah; we already know the big boys like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and Chris Christie. This ain't rocket science.

But it's worth it (to me at least) to see just what Rove is signaling as the mouthpiece of the establishment. (After all, they'll end up choosing the nominee.) And here's what he's saying, with my translations in italics (all emphasis mine).

"In a Nov. 23 CNN survey, Mitt Romney led 16 potential GOP presidential candidates with 20% ... That the front-runner is not even running shows polls now reflect little more than name recognition.

"The first of these contests was about making the election of GOP candidates in 2014 a priority—and not about their own personal ambition. Four presidential prospects did well. Gov. Christie ... Mr. Bush ... Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) ... and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.)."

Jeb Bush is certainly my first choice (I've been on retainer to the Bush family for decades, for crying out loud), followed by Chris Christie or Marco Rubio (if Jeb doesn't run). I'm afraid of Rand Paul's followers so I have to give him a shout-out even though I can't stand the idea of him as the party's standard-bearer. It would be a disaster for the GOP on the order of Barry Goldwater, but we have to treat this guy with kid gloves lest his supporters bolt the convention. Oh, and forget about Mitt Romney; he's yesterday's news.

Now if Jeb doesn't run and Christie stumbles, Rubio would definitely be my third choice. And here's my plug:

"Mr. Rubio delivered seven substantive speeches about strengthening the American dream, quietly collecting experts and influential big thinkers to help prepare the speeches and turn the ideas into legislation. This is smart: Too many candidates spend too little time on issues and end up lacking substance."

Get it? The guy's qualified to be president. So no more talk about Rubio's lack of gravitas.

And now for some of the candidates I DON'T endorse:

"For other presidential hopefuls, the more time they spent in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the more self-centered they appeared to be. Gov. Rick Perry (Texas) ... Sen. Paul ... Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) ... and former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.). Their efforts may not be too useful."

Let's not give too much oxygen to these four. Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum are all toxic to the establishment. And, in case I confused you with my earlier praise of Rand Paul, he's just as unacceptable. To underscore the point:

"Mr. Paul’s message is sometimes incoherent..."
___

"A second invisible primary centers on developing a message. Two Wisconsinites did particularly well in 2014: Gov. Scott Walker ... and Rep. Paul Ryan."

These two would be my second-tier choices, after Bush, Christie and Rubio.

As for money, 

"Messrs. Christie and Bush are best positioned to have big bundler networks raising money...

But governors, such as Scott Walker, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder ... cannot accept donations from Wall Street Republicans who do business with their state pension and other funds."

So don't get too excited by these guys. And, not to belabor the point, but:

"Mr. Paul [is] simultaneously running for re-election in 2016 and not likely to transfer his cash."

Save your dough.

After giving a brief mention to Dr. Ben Carson -- a darling of the Fox News crowd -- Rove cautions:

"The next contest is for staff. Each GOP hopeful has a team that won their last race, but all of them need to broaden their squads for the gigantic task of contesting the nomination. This is an early leadership test. Can a candidate recruit, train and lead a team of many strangers that can organize critical states and weather the tough patches that lie ahead?"

Don't waste your time or cash on vanity candidates; they don't have a chance.
___

So to recap,

Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio: Good.

Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum: Bad.

Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, John Kasich and Rick Snyder: Will do in a pinch.

Ben Carson: No.

Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee: Not even worth mentioning.

Mitt Romney: He's "not even running." So let him go. Please.